News:

Good day, denizens of OC.net! Per our tradition, the forum will shut down for Clean Monday, beginning around 9pm Sunday evening (2/18) and ending around 9pm Monday evening (2/19). In the spirit of the coming Forgiveness Sunday, I ask you to forgive me for the sins I have committed against you. At the end of Great and Holy Week, the Forum will also shut down for Holy Friday and Holy Saturday (times TBA).

Consider this line from the Roman Canon, which is basically unchanged since the 7th century:

Most humbly we implore You, almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your holy angel to your altar above; before the face of Your Divine Majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.

Clearly at this part of the Mass the priest's prayer is being addressed to God the Father. How is it helpful to have the priest and people look into each others' faces during these prayers to the Father?

Even Jesus lifted his eyes up toward heaven when he prayed to the Father.

I have never seen a reverential Novus Ordo liturgy where the priest makes eye contact with the congregation during moments when he is not addressing the congregation directly.

In Los Angeles, I saw such abuse all the time. Cardinal Mahony did a great disservice to the Church.

Indeed, "clown Masses" are not common, but the banal "community meal" Mass is all over the place.

FWIW, I don't see it as "turning his back to the people", but rather facing the same direction as the people in unison with the people. I think the people should be able to hear the prayers addressed to God in order to properly give their amen to them, but the priest doesn't have to be facing the people in order for the people to hear him, especially in churches that have some sort of sound system set up. I do believe that the priest should face the people when addressing or blessing them.

Agreed 100%.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the question of liturgical orientation was not just a preference one way or another, but was "essential".

He proposed standing a crucifix centrally on the altar as a compromise solution for now, and he has implemented that himself. When the time is ripe, the wholesale return ad orientem will come, at least for the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Even Anglican universally celebrated the eucharist with the priest facing east. This modernism of a vox populi mass is rooted in a desire to equaliize the priiest and people in the mass. That is why the priest in the NO mass is reduced to a reciter of the canon of the mass - and often he relinquishes the distribution of communion to female and male lay "special" ministers.

Look at the Orthodox liturgy and you will see the right amount of facing the people - when blessing them , when proclaiming the Gospel, when giving a homily, when censing them or the church. Apart from that everyone faces together to the east.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

It cannot be denied that the wholesale turning around of the altars to emphasize the "community meal" over the sacrifice did more than cause countless destructions of Catholic sanctuaries. It also contributed to "community meal" Catholic worship and a crisis of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Here are some examples of the "community meal" style Catholic worship. Some of these seem extreme, but remember, they are the logical extension of the faulty reasons ("community meal" worship) for turning the altars around. It cannot be denied that these displays were made possible by the re-orientation of the Catholic sanctuary.

Are you serious? You yourself go to Orthodox liturgy. Before you claim "community meal" Masses are a fringe, why don't you start going to Catholic Masses on a regular basis?

I am exceptionally serious. One of the closest priests and parishes to me is, for lack of a better word, a Novus Ordo parish where the pastor made it his life's work to give to his people a liturgy that is reverent, Scriptural, and reflective of the realities of the Second Vatican Council. It is a powerfully cohesive and faithful community that he has built upon the Novus Ordo liturgy and those principles. This is the parish and priest who brought me back into the Church. His funeral is today....BTW.

You presume that I do what I do because I have rejected the ordinary liturgy of the Roman rite. You presume far too much that is not real.

FWIW, I don't see it as "turning his back to the people", but rather facing the same direction as the people in unison with the people. I think the people should be able to hear the prayers addressed to God in order to properly give their amen to them, but the priest doesn't have to be facing the people in order for the people to hear him, especially in churches that have some sort of sound system set up. I do believe that the priest should face the people when addressing or blessing them.

Agreed 100%.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the question of liturgical orientation was not just a preference one way or another, but was "essential".

He proposed standing a crucifix centrally on the altar as a compromise solution for now, and he has implemented that himself. When the time is ripe, the wholesale return ad orientem will come, at least for the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Even Anglican universally celebrated the eucharist with the priest facing east. This modernism of a vox populi mass is rooted in a desire to equaliize the priiest and people in the mass. That is why the priest in the NO mass is reduced to a reciter of the canon of the mass - and often he relinquishes the distribution of communion to female and male lay "special" ministers.

This is myth and I am not even sure that it is a pious myth. Yes, indeed. It can be taken this way but it is not the intent at all and need not and ought not be experienced this way in a reverent Novus Ordo.

I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day. Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it. It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.

It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?

Interesting you mention the older liturgy there. Before the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, there were at least eight different liturgies in use in the Roman Church depending on where you were. Many of those liturgies went back before the Great Schism of 1054. The Council of Trent suppressed all liturgies less tan 200 years old. But many parts of the West migrated to the Tridentine Mass because of convenience and documentation. This plague foisted upon the poor unsuspecting Latins called the Novus Ordo is a real crock and it stinketh horribly.

I agree with you about the novus ordo. Now that the Mass is in the vernacular, it will be almost impossible to undo this liturgical experiment (and that is what it was) because people have become used to hearing the Mass in their own language. If one of the oldest Divine Liturgies of St. Gregory could be found dating back to 600 A.D. or so, and then translated into a respectful vernacular (without the interference of the ICEL) and with the retention of the Kyrie Eleison and the Trisagion Hymn in Greek, that would be simply awesome.

All the services of the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church have already been translated into superb Liturgical English by Anglo-Catholic members of the Church of England. It would be a marvelous thing, if Pope Benedict XVI were to authorize the Tridentine usages in English according to these existing translations. However, I don't expect it. In my observation, the Roman Church's continuing movement away from Orthodoxy has been exactly paralleled by the exponentially increasing hideousness of its liturgy, architecture, iconography and music. "Beauty is truth, and truth beauty," as Keats says. Applied to the Roman Catholic Church of the present day, that's a sobering thought.

I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day. Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it. It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.

It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?

Interesting you mention the older liturgy there. Before the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, there were at least eight different liturgies in use in the Roman Church depending on where you were. Many of those liturgies went back before the Great Schism of 1054. The Council of Trent suppressed all liturgies less tan 200 years old. But many parts of the West migrated to the Tridentine Mass because of convenience and documentation. This plague foisted upon the poor unsuspecting Latins called the Novus Ordo is a real crock and it stinketh horribly.

I agree with you about the novus ordo. Now that the Mass is in the vernacular, it will be almost impossible to undo this liturgical experiment (and that is what it was) because people have become used to hearing the Mass in their own language. If one of the oldest Divine Liturgies of St. Gregory could be found dating back to 600 A.D. or so, and then translated into a respectful vernacular (without the interference of the ICEL) and with the retention of the Kyrie Eleison and the Trisagion Hymn in Greek, that would be simply awesome.

All the services of the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church have already been translated into superb Liturgical English by Anglo-Catholic members of the Church of England. It would be a marvelous thing, if Pope Benedict XVI were to authorize the Tridentine usages in English according to these existing translations. However, I don't expect it. In my observation, the Roman Church's continuing movement away from Orthodoxy has been exactly paralleled by the exponentially increasing hideousness of its liturgy, architecture, iconography and music. "Beauty is truth, and truth beauty," as Keats says. Applied to the Roman Catholic Church of the present day, that's a sobering thought.

I still go to Mass with my Mom sometimes, like this past Mother's day. Although I'm not Catholic anymore, it's what I grew up with and wouldn't have any faith at all without it. It would be great to see this 'combination' of both the Tridentine and Pauline Rites.

It would be wonderful if Catholics could return to the original Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, then it would truly be Orthodox.

Merging the Tridentine with the Pauline might be a liturgical disaster. And if the Pope should die, would his predecessor continue the tradition of reform?

Interesting you mention the older liturgy there. Before the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, there were at least eight different liturgies in use in the Roman Church depending on where you were. Many of those liturgies went back before the Great Schism of 1054. The Council of Trent suppressed all liturgies less tan 200 years old. But many parts of the West migrated to the Tridentine Mass because of convenience and documentation. This plague foisted upon the poor unsuspecting Latins called the Novus Ordo is a real crock and it stinketh horribly.

I agree with you about the novus ordo. Now that the Mass is in the vernacular, it will be almost impossible to undo this liturgical experiment (and that is what it was) because people have become used to hearing the Mass in their own language. If one of the oldest Divine Liturgies of St. Gregory could be found dating back to 600 A.D. or so, and then translated into a respectful vernacular (without the interference of the ICEL) and with the retention of the Kyrie Eleison and the Trisagion Hymn in Greek, that would be simply awesome.

All the services of the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church have already been translated into superb Liturgical English by Anglo-Catholic members of the Church of England. It would be a marvelous thing, if Pope Benedict XVI were to authorize the Tridentine usages in English according to these existing translations. However, I don't expect it. In my observation, the Roman Church's continuing movement away from Orthodoxy has been exactly paralleled by the exponentially increasing hideousness of its liturgy, architecture, iconography and music. "Beauty is truth, and truth beauty," as Keats says. Applied to the Roman Catholic Church of the present day, that's a sobering thought.

David James

Actually by your own criteria the Novus Ordo is beautiful liturgy.

Do you mean to imply that, since Catholics are obliged to accept the Novus Ordo as licit liturgy, then, according to Keats' logic, it is beautiful? But that would be Orwellian, sir!

In my observation, the Roman Church's continuing movement away from Orthodoxy has been exactly paralleled by the exponentially increasing hideousness of its liturgy, architecture, iconography and music.

Well you're a downer!

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.

I think it has to do with the recent interest in tradition. This works both ways. Returning to more traditional forms of liturgy, fasting, prayer, etc certainly does bring us closer together. Then again, it brings with it a strengthening in the parts of your tradition that divide us - papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.

In my observation, the Roman Church's continuing movement away from Orthodoxy has been exactly paralleled by the exponentially increasing hideousness of its liturgy, architecture, iconography and music.

If Rome's position is that the SSPX is not in schism, then it isn't in schism. I'm not intimate with the SSPX, but I've been to some of their churches, and there may be eccentric and troublesome Williamson types, but there are also some wonderful priests in that society.

I've always found it astonishing that many bishops are so chummy with Protestants and Eastern Orthodox (who deny papal jurisdiction in principle and maintain erroneous or heretical views) while refusing even to speak with that horrific, nasty, too-Catholic SSPX. Fortunately an increasing number of bishops are taking Pope Benedict's lead in reaching out. I am reminded of that French bishop last year who invited the local SSPX priests to his cathedral to celebrate Mass and attend a meeting of diocesan priests.

Vatican II's vague ruminations on religious liberty and ecumenism are not a church-dividing issue.

I don't find it suprising at all that many RC bishops and clergy find more solidarity with our separated Orthodox and Protestant brethren they with the schismatic SSPX. After all, at least the separated brethren are not openly opposed to Vatican II and such reforms as ecumenism and religious liberty.

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.

I think it has to do with the recent interest in tradition. This works both ways. Returning to more traditional forms of liturgy, fasting, prayer, etc certainly does bring us closer together. Then again, it brings with it a strengthening in the parts of your tradition that divide us - papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.

Well that's true too. But when I spoke of "in recent decades", I was thinking of how Vatican II moved us (Catholics) further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in others.

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.

I think it has to do with the recent interest in tradition. This works both ways. Returning to more traditional forms of liturgy, fasting, prayer, etc certainly does bring us closer together. Then again, it brings with it a strengthening in the parts of your tradition that divide us - papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.

Well that's true too. But when I spoke of "in recent decades", I was thinking of how Vatican II moved us (Catholics) further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in others.

Vatican II certainly moved me closer to Eastern Orthodoxy , but I am wondering what you have in mind, when you say that Vatican II has moved the Catholic Church closer to Orthodoxy? In any case, here is my list of five straightforward actions the Pope could take to unilaterally, but decisively, accelerate rapprochement with the Orthodox:

1. Repudiate the use of the filioque (if not the doctrine) and remove it from the liturgical books2. Adopt the Orthodox Paschalion3. Restore the married priesthood in the Western Rite4. Restore the Eastward position in the Mass5. Restore the ancient fasting disciplines for Wednesdays, Fridays, in Lent and on Ember days, and before Holy Communion.

I'm not holding my breath. I realize that these recommendations are largely disciplinary in nature, rather than doctrinal, but, IMO, the two Churches are more estranged in ethos, than they are by formal teaching. I don't know that any of these actions, even No. 3, would be particularly controversial with most Roman Catholics, or even noticed in some cases, but they certainly would go a long way to improve the attitudes of rank-and-file Orthodox Christians towards Rome.

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.

I think it has to do with the recent interest in tradition. This works both ways. Returning to more traditional forms of liturgy, fasting, prayer, etc certainly does bring us closer together. Then again, it brings with it a strengthening in the parts of your tradition that divide us - papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.

Well that's true too. But when I spoke of "in recent decades", I was thinking of how Vatican II moved us (Catholics) further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in others.

Vatican II certainly moved me closer to Eastern Orthodoxy , but I am wondering what you have in mind, when you say that Vatican II has moved the Catholic Church closer to Orthodoxy? In any case, here is my list of five straightforward actions the Pope could take to unilaterally, but decisively, accelerate rapprochement with the Orthodox:

1. Repudiate the use of the filioque (if not the doctrine) and remove it from the liturgical books2. Adopt the Orthodox Paschalion3. Restore the married priesthood in the Western Rite4. Restore the Eastward position in the Mass5. Restore the ancient fasting disciplines for Wednesdays, Fridays, in Lent and on Ember days, and before Holy Communion.

I'm not holding my breath. I realize that these recommendations are largely disciplinary in nature, rather than doctrinal,

You needn't apologize for that. The fact that your suggestions are disciplinary in nature, rather than doctrinal, makes it possible that they will be fulfilled.

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.

I think it has to do with the recent interest in tradition. This works both ways. Returning to more traditional forms of liturgy, fasting, prayer, etc certainly does bring us closer together. Then again, it brings with it a strengthening in the parts of your tradition that divide us - papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.

Well that's true too. But when I spoke of "in recent decades", I was thinking of how Vatican II moved us (Catholics) further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in others.

Vatican II certainly moved me closer to Eastern Orthodoxy , but I am wondering what you have in mind, when you say that Vatican II has moved the Catholic Church closer to Orthodoxy? In any case, here is my list of five straightforward actions the Pope could take to unilaterally, but decisively, accelerate rapprochement with the Orthodox:

1. Repudiate the use of the filioque (if not the doctrine) and remove it from the liturgical books2. Adopt the Orthodox Paschalion3. Restore the married priesthood in the Western Rite4. Restore the Eastward position in the Mass5. Restore the ancient fasting disciplines for Wednesdays, Fridays, in Lent and on Ember days, and before Holy Communion.

I'm not holding my breath. I realize that these recommendations are largely disciplinary in nature, rather than doctrinal,

You needn't apologize for that. The fact that your suggestions are disciplinary in nature, rather than doctrinal, makes it possible that they will be fulfilled.

No. 1 is not disciplinary.

No. 3 has been ruled out for the long term, primarily because of the long standing tradition in the west.

Again if we are to argue for the traditions of the east, then we must allow the traditions of the west to bind as well.

No. 2 is something that Pope Benedict has already whispered and with which I agree totally!! My fellow Catholics rise up in righteous wroth...but who cares about that!!

No. 4 is not going to change readily in the Roman ordinary but there will be a tendency toward accommodating both till one either fades or becomes part of tradition.

In the case of No. 4 I think it would be very useful to suggest that seminary training be unwaveringly clear that the orientation of the priest toward the people is still an act directed toward God and custody of the eyes and attention are necessary at all time. Trust me when I say that the people can tell the difference in focus!!

Now, you claim to be a Latin Rite Catholic of the Diocese of Knoxville and you say Christ is not present at the Altar, as a Catholic YOU ARE COMPELLED to believe that Christ is present at the Tabernacle. This is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

He seems to have covered your concern here in his original note. I think if you go back and look, what you are seeking from him is already there. He seems to be saying something else when he says that Christ is 'not present IN the altar'...He certainly reference Christ in the Eucharist and the presence seems to be real in his mind and present in the sanctuary.

That is correct and I responded to the PM that was sent with this information. However for the record, my statement was referring to the physical Altar itself, not the Tabernacle with the consecrated host in it or Christ truly present in the Body and Blood of the Eucharist.

My statement simply means that because I believe God to be present in the bodies of the faithful due to the gift of the Holy Spirit received during baptism and confirmation, and because we the faithful have been stated to be the body of Christ as well as his visible Church on earth. Because I believe Christ to be present in the priest acting in His person, and because Jesus himself said that wherever two or three are gathered in His name that He is there. And finally, because I DO believe in Christ's presence truly there in Holy Communion I feel that no matter what direction you turn, you are facing God. God is everywhere and I truly believe that it does not matter which way the priest faces for him to pray to God effectively. I recognize that others feel differently and that is fine. However, the Vatican themselves has said that the Mass can be performed facing towards the Faithful and some of their documents actually suggest that this might be preferred.

From the GIRM: The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.

I see the Holy Father celebrating Mass facing towards the faithful all the time. He is on record stating that he prefers the other orientation but he obviously sees it as not required considering that he frequently disregards his own statement.

I don't want to be complete jerk but reading my entire post might be in order before jumping to conclusions such as the ones you sent in your PM and posted above.

Christ is Risen!

I have to disagree with what you're saying Christ is Present in the Altar for the Altar symbolizes the Cross, the Tomb and the Throne of Christ on high, the Altar is a symbol of Christ Himself hence why one bows to the Altar when passing in front of it. What you say about God being present in man as a temple of the Holy Spirit is certainly true. but if our liturgy is the act of worship of the church in which we God's pilgrim people here on earth journey towards the heavenly Jerusalem with the priest as our guide then a common orientation is certainly helpful and I would argue mandatory.

Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!

"VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said."

"VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said."

I will be happy if I weren't sure that it will cause another schismatic group defending Vatican II mass .

Vatican II and everything it did, said, or taught was a wonderful blessing for the RCC and the whole universal Christian and human society. I'm tired of hearing people bash it constantly as being "defective" or "heretical". We are all pilgrims on a journey and nobody having crossed a great length of a journey would, for all intents and purpose's turn back on the road and head back to where they were before.

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

"VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said."

I will be happy if I weren't sure that it will cause another schismatic group defending Vatican II mass .

Vatican II and everything it did, said, or taught was a wonderful blessing for the RCC and the whole universal Christian and human society. I'm tired of hearing people bash it constantly as being "defective" or "heretical". We are all pilgrims on a journey and nobody having crossed a great length of a journey would, for all intents and purpose's turn back on the road and head back to where they were before.

I am catholic, as catholic I obey the Church and I keep communion with Rome, and it includes Vatican II teachings, I love the Ordinary rite of the mass in which I grew, I also love the Extraordinary rite of the mass in which I have never participated in live, but that I have watched through tv, but you know, If pope Benedict reforms the Ordinary rite of the Mass given by Vatican II council, then We will see many who will not accept the reform and will create a separated group of Vatican II council fanatics.

We are all pilgrims on a journey and nobody having crossed a great length of a journey would, for all intents and purpose's turn back on the road and head back to where they were before.

Without weighing in on whether my comment on the above describes the Roman Catholic Church after the Vatican II reforms, I have to note that anyone who realized they were on the wrong road and DIDN'T head back is either suicidal or a fool.

Which is to say, the fact one has crossed a great distance is no basis for refusing to turn back if one is going the wrong way.

What, if I may ask, does this topic have to do with Orthodox-Catholic Discussion?

Well Many of Eastern Christian are disaffected catholics from vatican II, If the Holy Mass is performed as it should by all the priest without non couciliar innovations, they may go back to Rome.

I'm one of those Eastern Christians who left the Latin Church and went to the Melkites. I could not stand the guitar Masses, stripped Churches, effeminate priests, screaming insane nuns and bishops with almost no cojones. I grew up Roman Catholic, and the Mass was degraded when I was 9 or 10 years old, after that, it was expermentation time amongst the Latins. When I went to Greece in 1982 and saw a Divine Liturgy for the first time..... WHOA!!!! I found it!!!! That's REAL worship!!!!!

What, if I may ask, does this topic have to do with Orthodox-Catholic Discussion?

Well Many of Eastern Christian are disaffected catholics from vatican II, If the Holy Mass is performed as it should by all the priest without non couciliar innovations, they may go back to Rome.

I'm one of those Eastern Christians who left the Latin Church and went to the Melkites. I could not stand the guitar Masses, stripped Churches, effeminate priests, screaming insane nuns and bishops with almost no cojones. I grew up Roman Catholic, and the Mass was degraded when I was 9 or 10 years old, after that, it was expermentation time amongst the Latins. When I went to Greece in 1982 and saw a Divine Liturgy for the first time..... WHOA!!!! I found it!!!! That's REAL worship!!!!!

Don't want to be rude, but to me your spirituality seems much more like the consumist sense of life in USA, to say: "I don't like it, I don't buy it".

What, if I may ask, does this topic have to do with Orthodox-Catholic Discussion?

Let's see. Orthodox and Catholics are discussing this news article. The mandate of this sub-forum reads:

Quote

Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

One would think that a more traditional liturgy, which Pope Benedict XVI is trying to encourage with his "Reform of the Reform," is one of the issues that could unite the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, it's also one of the most contentious issues that divides us.

Also note the rather behaved participation of both our Orthodox and Catholic posters. If anything, more threads should be like this one.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Well Many of Eastern Christian are disaffected catholics from vatican II, If the Holy Mass is performed as it should by all the priest without non couciliar innovations, they may go back to Rome.

What about Western Christians?

I think they will also go back if the Mass is their problem, but to me the problem with most catholics is that they have been adoctrinated by the seccular world agains a dogmatic teaching of the proper way to live. In other words, many catholics have gone away because they don't believe in dogma.

Of course Dogma is not a matter to be convinced, rather is a teaching to be accepted as it is.

What, if I may ask, does this topic have to do with Orthodox-Catholic Discussion?

Let's see. Orthodox and Catholics are discussing this news article. The mandate of this sub-forum reads:

Quote

Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

One would think that a more traditional liturgy, which Pope Benedict XVI is trying to encourage with his "Reform of the Reform," is one of the issues that could unite the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, it's also one of the most contentious issues that divides us.

Also note the rather behaved participation of both our Orthodox and Catholic posters. If anything, more threads should be like this one.

(Chuckle) OK, Schultz, I'll play along. Just remember I worship in a formerly Eastern Catholic ACROD parish where the several former Latin Catholic families who departed Rome over Vatican II bypassed the local EC parish totally and converted directly to Orthodoxy. It colors my perspective of "unity".I don't see any changes in the RC liturgy as basic to unity, personally. But again, that is my opinion as to relevance of this topic to the Orthodox Catholics.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Don't want to be rude, but to me your spirituality seems much more like the consumist sense of life in USA, to say: "I don't like it, I don't buy it".

Hmmm. I see your point. However, the truth is the Latin side of the Catholic Church, especially the American and European dioceses, threw the baby out with the bath water and created a stale, "let's entertain people" form of pseudo-worship. I don't know how old you are, but the stuff in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s was horridly dead.

What, if I may ask, does this topic have to do with Orthodox-Catholic Discussion?

Let's see. Orthodox and Catholics are discussing this news article. The mandate of this sub-forum reads:

Quote

Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

One would think that a more traditional liturgy, which Pope Benedict XVI is trying to encourage with his "Reform of the Reform," is one of the issues that could unite the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, it's also one of the most contentious issues that divides us.

Also note the rather behaved participation of both our Orthodox and Catholic posters. If anything, more threads should be like this one.

(Chuckle) OK, Schultz, I'll play along. Just remember I worship in a formerly Eastern Catholic ACROD parish where the several former Latin Catholic families who departed Rome over Vatican II bypassed the local EC parish totally and converted directly to Orthodoxy. It colors my perspective of "unity".I don't see any changes in the RC liturgy as basic to unity, personally. But again, that is my opinion as to relevance of this topic to the Orthodox Catholics.

I'm not saying I agree with what I wrote. I'm merely pointing out the fact that this thread is precisely where it should be.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Personally, I think that we have, in recent decades, moved further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in other regards.

I think it has to do with the recent interest in tradition. This works both ways. Returning to more traditional forms of liturgy, fasting, prayer, etc certainly does bring us closer together. Then again, it brings with it a strengthening in the parts of your tradition that divide us - papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.

Well that's true too. But when I spoke of "in recent decades", I was thinking of how Vatican II moved us (Catholics) further from Orthodoxy in some regards but closer in others.

Vatican II certainly moved me closer to Eastern Orthodoxy , but I am wondering what you have in mind, when you say that Vatican II has moved the Catholic Church closer to Orthodoxy? In any case, here is my list of five straightforward actions the Pope could take to unilaterally, but decisively, accelerate rapprochement with the Orthodox:

1. Repudiate the use of the filioque (if not the doctrine) and remove it from the liturgical books2. Adopt the Orthodox Paschalion3. Restore the married priesthood in the Western Rite4. Restore the Eastward position in the Mass5. Restore the ancient fasting disciplines for Wednesdays, Fridays, in Lent and on Ember days, and before Holy Communion.

I'm not holding my breath. I realize that these recommendations are largely disciplinary in nature, rather than doctrinal,

You needn't apologize for that. The fact that your suggestions are disciplinary in nature, rather than doctrinal, makes it possible that they will be fulfilled.

No. 1 is not disciplinary.

No. 3 has been ruled out for the long term, primarily because of the long standing tradition in the west.

Again if we are to argue for the traditions of the east, then we must allow the traditions of the west to bind as well.

No. 2 is something that Pope Benedict has already whispered and with which I agree totally!! My fellow Catholics rise up in righteous wroth...but who cares about that!!

No. 4 is not going to change readily in the Roman ordinary but there will be a tendency toward accommodating both till one either fades or becomes part of tradition.

In the case of No. 4 I think it would be very useful to suggest that seminary training be unwaveringly clear that the orientation of the priest toward the people is still an act directed toward God and custody of the eyes and attention are necessary at all time. Trust me when I say that the people can tell the difference in focus!!

No. 5 is essential!!

As I said in my earlier post, I am not holding my breath that Pope Benedict will do any of these things - it is just a list of five actions he could take (they are all within his power to do unilaterally, if I am not mistaken) that, if he did them all, really might convince many Orthodox that there is hope for reunion, after all. Not doing any one of them reduces that longed-for effect correspondingly. To address ElijahMaria's comments specifically:

No. 1, as far as I understand it, is not a huge issue for Roman Catholics, but it is the biggest formal issue that divides our two Churches, still, for Eastern Orthodox - bigger even than the Roman conception of the role of the Papacy. I see no chance of reunion, while the actual use of the filioque is still permitted.

As for no. 2, how can the Churches reunite and not celebrate Easter on the same date, but not to use the Orthodox paschalion would certainly create a huge new schism in Orthodoxy, so what good is that?

Regarding issue No. 3, I realize that Roman Catholic apologists for this discipline peculiar the Roman patriarchate (now abolished, for reasons which are not obvious to me, especially in the context we are now discussing) trot out a long history [ignoring Cardinal Wolsey and the Borgias] and consider it taboo. We see what that has come to in recent years. So, I think St. Paphnutius of Thebes was right to dissuade the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council from making clerical celibacy a requirement for ordination:

"While [the bishops at Nicaea] were deliberating about this, some thought that a law ought to be passed enacting that bishops and presbyters, deacons and subdeacons, should hold no intercourse with the wife they had espoused before they entered the priesthood; but Paphnutius, the confessor, stood up and testified against this proposition; he said that marriage was honorable and chaste, and that cohabitation with their own wives was chastity, and advised the Synod not to frame such a law, for it would be difficult to bear, and might serve as an occasion of incontinence to them and their wives; and he reminded them, that according to the ancient tradition of the church, those who were unmarried when they took part in the communion of sacred orders, were required to remain so, but that those who were married, were not to put away their wives. Such was the advice of Paphnutius, although he was himself unmarried, and in accordance with it, the Synod concurred in his counsel, enacted no law about it, but left the matter to the decision of individual judgment, and not to compulsion [The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, quoted from Wikipedia]."

Today, many Roman Catholic clergy are ashamed even to wear their clericals in public, and the shortage of priests is dire. The restoration of a married clergy would go a long way to repair the damage done by the recent clerical sexual abuse scandals, and open up the priesthood to many qualified married candidates. The celibate priesthood would continue of course, but those priests would not live alone, but only in monasteries or (as in the Middle Ages) as secular canons in communities in the larger parishes and cathedrals, where there is someone in authority over them who knows what they are doing and whether they come home at night. I think it is now unquestionably clear that St. Paphnutius' common-sense advice is the wiser path.

I don't have much patience for 'facing the people' apologetics, either. Facing east to pray is a practice that goes back at least to the Old Testament, which is why church buildings themselves have historically been 'oriented' and people are buried (or used to be until recently) with their feet to the east. The Vatican change, which has spread like kudzu among Anglicans and others, amounts to liturgical wrecking at its most fundamental, because it is a blatant disruption of the age-old Judeo-Christian prayer tradition.

Well, all this is hypothetical. To return to the topic, "Reform of the Reform" - traditional-minded Catholics long for the old piety, and watch hopefully for any crumb that may come their way. God bless them, and I don't see why the Pope couldn't take a cue from the Byzantine Rite and either make the old rite equal with the new (as in the Old Rite-New Rite in the Russian Orthodox Church) or, perhaps, take a cue from the Byzantine Rite and order use of the Tridentine on certain days (as with the Liturgy of St. Basil), such as the feasts of some of the more ultramontane saints, or feastdays like the Sacred Heart or the Immaculate Conception, that are especially associated with the post-Tridentine period. That is, no doubt, as wishful as any of the other points discussed in this note, but a genuine effort to restore the 'old piety' on both sides (understood as the authentic tradition of the Church) is the best hope for Orthodox-Catholic reunion.

As I said in my earlier post, I am not holding my breath that Pope Benedict will do any of these things - it is just a list of five actions he could take (they are all within his power to do unilaterally, if I am not mistaken) that, if he did them all, really might convince many Orthodox that there is hope for reunion, after all. Not doing any one of them reduces that longed-for effect correspondingly. To address ElijahMaria's comments specifically:

No. 1, as far as I understand it, is not a huge issue for Roman Catholics, but it is the biggest formal issue that divides our two Churches, still, for Eastern Orthodox - bigger even than the Roman conception of the role of the Papacy. I see no chance of reunion, while the actual use of the filioque is still permitted.

As for no. 2, how can the Churches reunite and not celebrate Easter on the same date, but not to use the Orthodox paschalion would certainly create a huge new schism in Orthodoxy, so what good is that?

Regarding issue No. 3, I realize that Roman Catholic apologists for this discipline peculiar the Roman patriarchate (now abolished, for reasons which are not obvious to me, especially in the context we are now discussing) trot out a long history [ignoring Cardinal Wolsey and the Borgias] and consider it taboo. We see what that has come to in recent years. So, I think St. Paphnutius of Thebes was right to dissuade the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council from making clerical celibacy a requirement for ordination:

"While [the bishops at Nicaea] were deliberating about this, some thought that a law ought to be passed enacting that bishops and presbyters, deacons and subdeacons, should hold no intercourse with the wife they had espoused before they entered the priesthood; but Paphnutius, the confessor, stood up and testified against this proposition; he said that marriage was honorable and chaste, and that cohabitation with their own wives was chastity, and advised the Synod not to frame such a law, for it would be difficult to bear, and might serve as an occasion of incontinence to them and their wives; and he reminded them, that according to the ancient tradition of the church, those who were unmarried when they took part in the communion of sacred orders, were required to remain so, but that those who were married, were not to put away their wives. Such was the advice of Paphnutius, although he was himself unmarried, and in accordance with it, the Synod concurred in his counsel, enacted no law about it, but left the matter to the decision of individual judgment, and not to compulsion [The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, quoted from Wikipedia]."

Today, many Roman Catholic clergy are ashamed even to wear their clericals in public, and the shortage of priests is dire. The restoration of a married clergy would go a long way to repair the damage done by the recent clerical sexual abuse scandals, and open up the priesthood to many qualified married candidates. The celibate priesthood would continue of course, but those priests would not live alone, but only in monasteries or (as in the Middle Ages) as secular canons in communities in the larger parishes and cathedrals, where there is someone in authority over them who knows what they are doing and whether they come home at night. I think it is now unquestionably clear that St. Paphnutius' common-sense advice is the wiser path.

I don't have much patience for 'facing the people' apologetics, either. Facing east to pray is a practice that goes back at least to the Old Testament, which is why church buildings themselves have historically been 'oriented' and people are buried (or used to be until recently) with their feet to the east. The Vatican change, which has spread like kudzu among Anglicans and others, amounts to liturgical wrecking at its most fundamental, because it is a blatant disruption of the age-old Judeo-Christian prayer tradition.

Well, all this is hypothetical. To return to the topic, "Reform of the Reform" - traditional-minded Catholics long for the old piety, and watch hopefully for any crumb that may come their way. God bless them, and I don't see why the Pope couldn't take a cue from the Byzantine Rite and either make the old rite equal with the new (as in the Old Rite-New Rite in the Russian Orthodox Church) or, perhaps, take a cue from the Byzantine Rite and order use of the Tridentine on certain days (as with the Liturgy of St. Basil), such as the feasts of some of the more ultramontane saints, or feastdays like the Sacred Heart or the Immaculate Conception, that are especially associated with the post-Tridentine period. That is, no doubt, as wishful as any of the other points discussed in this note, but a genuine effort to restore the 'old piety' on both sides (understood as the authentic tradition of the Church) is the best hope for Orthodox-Catholic reunion.

Grace and Peace,

I think a lot of these suggestions are very good ideas... although our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI is a fairly measured man, I would welcome these changes as an act of love and unity with our Eastern Brothers and Sisters. I mean, if Pope Paul VI can do such an act toward Protestants as wreck our Tridentine Rite, Pope Benedict XVI could do that same towards the Eastern...

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I think it is possible that all five changes may come to be. It will, however, take more time for some than for others. The current RCC Pope is considered (by those in his church) to be more disposed toward a 'conservative' line on doctrine, practice etc., as far as I'm aware. He may then be open to adapting to at least some of these principles. (He's written a bunch of books and papers, and I've read some of them.)

Logged

My only weakness is, well, never mind

He said he had a horrible houseI looked in it and learnt to shut my mouth

No. 1, as far as I understand it, is not a huge issue for Roman Catholics, but it is the biggest formal issue that divides our two Churches, still, for Eastern Orthodox - bigger even than the Roman conception of the role of the Papacy. I see no chance of reunion, while the actual use of the filioque is still permitted.

I haven't yet thought of much of a response, except to say that I think most Catholics wouldn't object to switching to the Apostles' Creed -- which of course doesn't mention the Holy Spirit's procession. But I can't imagine most Catholics being OK with " ... who proceeds from the Father".

No. 1, as far as I understand it, is not a huge issue for Roman Catholics, but it is the biggest formal issue that divides our two Churches, still, for Eastern Orthodox - bigger even than the Roman conception of the role of the Papacy. I see no chance of reunion, while the actual use of the filioque is still permitted.

I haven't yet thought of much of a response, except to say that I think most Catholics wouldn't object to switching to the Apostles' Creed -- which of course doesn't mention the Holy Spirit's procession. But I can't imagine most Catholics being OK with " ... who proceeds from the Father".

My parish already uses the Apostles Creed as a substitute for the Nicene. The priest asks "Do you believe" and then reads a few lines from it and we congregants respond by saying "I believe", and so on. At least it's better then the "We believe" version that most RC's use (And will be done away with next November).

« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 06:25:54 PM by Robb »

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Don't want to be rude, but to me your spirituality seems much more like the consumist sense of life in USA, to say: "I don't like it, I don't buy it".

Hmmm. I see your point. However, the truth is the Latin side of the Catholic Church, especially the American and European dioceses, threw the baby out with the bath water and created a stale, "let's entertain people" form of pseudo-worship. I don't know how old you are, but the stuff in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s was horridly dead.

I agree. I fell in love with the Divine Liturgy the first time I attended.

For me, it was no turning back..

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

1) The liturgical forms of the Mass are only one part of the Catholic faith. It's impossible to say, "the Novus Ordo changed XYZ from the Latin mass, and therefore the whole of Catholicism is invalid." First, even the pre-schism Church produced three different liturgies within the first 400 years of Christian History. If we're going by "the earlier, the better," then both Orthodoxy and Catholicism have it wrong, and we should chuck the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom out with the Novus Ordo because they're both changes to earlier liturgies. Second, it's not the wording of the Liturgy that is so essential as the reverence to God given by it. There are some absolutely beautiful words in the Divine Liturgy, the Tridentine Latin Mass, and the Novus Ordo. And then there are some that no longer mean anything, such as "The Doors, The Doors" in St. John Chrysostom's liturgy - since unbaptized, non-Orthodox, and even non-Christians are now (and have been for a long time) permitted to stay inside the Church for the remainder of the service.

2) Going off of point 1, there is a tremendous problem in the Catholic Church currently in regards to reverence for God. Some Churches have done away with kneeling altogether, and others have hideous modern altars with barely more than a crucifix. This needs to stop, and the Church needs to remember the awe of Godly Worship which is essential to our faith. Perhaps this was a part of Vatican 2, but I see no reason to pin-point the change in Churches to this council - AFAIK, they made no directive about the setup of altars, positioning of Churches, etc.

... there is a tremendous problem in the Catholic Church currently in regards to reverence for God. Some Churches have done away with kneeling altogether, and others have hideous modern altars with barely more than a crucifix. This needs to stop, and the Church needs to remember the awe of Godly Worship which is essential to our faith.

This is the confusing point to many people, especially non-Catholics, who don't see the RCC as the one, true, Church.

1) The liturgical forms of the Mass are only one part of the Catholic faith. It's impossible to say, "the Novus Ordo changed XYZ from the Latin mass, and therefore the whole of Catholicism is invalid." First, even the pre-schism Church produced three different liturgies within the first 400 years of Christian History. If we're going by "the earlier, the better," then both Orthodoxy and Catholicism have it wrong, and we should chuck the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom out with the Novus Ordo because they're both changes to earlier liturgies. Second, it's not the wording of the Liturgy that is so essential as the reverence to God given by it. There are some absolutely beautiful words in the Divine Liturgy, the Tridentine Latin Mass, and the Novus Ordo. And then there are some that no longer mean anything, such as "The Doors, The Doors" in St. John Chrysostom's liturgy - since unbaptized, non-Orthodox, and even non-Christians are now (and have been for a long time) permitted to stay inside the Church for the remainder of the service.

2) Going off of point 1, there is a tremendous problem in the Catholic Church currently in regards to reverence for God. Some Churches have done away with kneeling altogether, and others have hideous modern altars with barely more than a crucifix. This needs to stop, and the Church needs to remember the awe of Godly Worship which is essential to our faith. Perhaps this was a part of Vatican 2, but I see no reason to pin-point the change in Churches to this council - AFAIK, they made no directive about the setup of altars, positioning of Churches, etc.

Just my $.02

I appreciate your input. If I may, though, many of us Orthodox (especially those who came from the RCC) see the problems of Vatican 2 that arose as symptomatic of deeper issues. I don't think it's helpful for any of us Orthodox to gloat about them, however.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

I think one of the things that is not good about the Orthodox fast is the legalistic and inordinate attention paid by so many to ALL those lovely tasty and expensive substitutes one can use to hold to the letter of the law but not its spirit.

I think this is true with the meat abstinence in our Church too. I think it is kind of strange that I could technically go to Red Lobster and have lobster tail, scallops, shrimp scampi, etc. and not be breaking my meat abstinence on a Friday during Lent.

The rules give you a minimum obligation. No one prevents you from doing more than the minimum.

Right, I know, and I'm not saying I have ever actually went to Red Lobster during Lent because I actually haven't. I'm just saying that I think it is weird that there is such a huge loophole that someone could actually pig out at Red Lobster and still not have broken the Friday abstinence.

Once a Greek Orthodox Priest was eating out with his family at Red Lobster. They chose something a little less expensive that day as it was a Friday and they wanted to keep the fast, but a parishioner saw the Priest and came over to his table.

The man asked, "Father, since we are ordering lobster, would it be okay to have butter with it? Lobster does not taste good without the butter sauce."

Father responded, "Since you have just purchased lobster, which is a very expensive meal, sure go ahead and enjoy the butter too, but that is not really the spirit of Lent."

As an aside, when and why did lobster become a luxury food? I read once that lobster and shellfish were previously considered peasant foods, and only something to eat when on the brink of starvation.

(Perhaps that's why shellfish is allowed?)

Don't be obtuse. Surely you have been to red lobster and seen the price of lobster tail. In this day and age it would make more sense to require the abstinence to be expensive food/delicacies instead of no meat. No meat was originally established because meat was more expensive than fish/seafood. That is no longer the case.